wdoherty@bbncca.ARPA (Will Doherty) (01/22/84)
To: Randwulf (genrad!mit-eddie!rh) I don't consider Playboy to be a resource on the morality of crossgenerational sexuality, heterosexual or otherwise. I think that anyone who can figure out how to get to the voting booth and pull the levers has the right to vote (as long as each person gets only one vote of course). I think people should be able to get married at the age of 14, or at any age, if they so desire. I worry about children who don't have knowledge of pregnancy and contraception engaging in sexual activity. In crossgenerational relationships (or any heterosexual relationships for that matter), I consider this (contraception) to be the responsibility of the more knowledgeable (generally the older) partner. Perhaps if you had started having sex before you were 18, you would have had more experience sooner and you would have been able to understand more of the "implications" earlier. Or maybe the "implications" just would have been different. But anyway, I certainly agree with the right to celibacy mentioned by another contributor, and that includes a right to be free from harassment for a sexuality which certainly doesn't require too much consent from others. As far as most of the rest of your comments go-- Well, let's face it, flames fall in one of two categories: reasoned or unreasoned. I consider category 1 worthy of reply. That means category 2 ain't worth the trouble. But when you consider yourself glad that you're not gay because you "would feel compelled to hunt down all of the members of NAMBL [sic] for giving people of my persuasion a bad name," I think you should consider two things: 1) Many of us lesbian and gay folk may be glad to have a person of your insight refusing to identify with us. 2) Many participants in crossgenerational sexuality are straight (i.e. your sexual orientation). The only reason crossgenerational lovers expect lesbians and gays to better understand our oppression is because lesbians and gays have had to suffer similar oppression by similar segments of our society (don't worry, I won't mention any names). To: Laura Creighton (utzoo!utcsstat!laura) I agree that we should "drop the age restriction (which isn't gonna work anyway, people being as they are) and teach kids how not to be manipulated through force or guilt" at least to the extent that that is possible. I also believe in penalties for those who force sexual acts on anyone. That indeed is the "unacceptable platform." To: P.Heisler (wjh12!hocsj!pph) wrt: "You should have also put that in net.jokes." No. To: "Lance" I agree that "a child can be severely crippled emotionally by a traumatic sexual experience with a trusted adult." Instead, I would recommend *healthy* sexual experiences with adults if both parties so desire. Indeed it is unfortunate that in some cases, even today, resurgent barbarism in our society sometimes makes people transform their healthy opinions of their healthy childhood sexuality into shame at such "despicable" activities. No question that incest may hurt children terribly. But with a responsible parent, and within a responsible society, I see no reason why a bit of healthy sexual expression between mother and child, father and child, or between siblings, should be any problem whatsoever. Such expressions are common in a variety of cultures worldwide (refs available upon request). As to your last sentence, that gets filed into the unanswerable abyss of category #2. To: Dave Sherman (decvax!utcsrgv!dave) We want to give any two-year-olds who are capable of making it to the polls the right to vote. Age should not be a qualification. Day-old babies must have the right to move out of the house. Sometimes their parents have the gall to beat them. As soon as they are capable of realizing any alternative, they should request the appropriate aid from the appropriate agency (which today does not exist in anything approaching a proper solution to the problem). Now, beating a baby--that is child abuse, but hide the bruises a bit and don't break any bones. Then it's legal. Hell, the teachers can do it without risk of retribution in the public schools. NAMBLA does not intend to lower the age of consent. NAMBLA proposes to *abolish* the age of consent. I barely have time to respond to the first round and Steve Dyer's already begun the second. When my fingers recover... Will Doherty decvax!bbncca!wdoherty
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (01/23/84)
I would like to take Will Doherty up on his offer to furnish references
on the practice of incest in other societies.
I am aware that incest taboos vary quite a bit from culture to culture
and that some groups even go so far as to r e q u i r e sexual
activity or marriage among classes of relatives which other groups
place strictly off-limits; nevertheless I haven't heard of examples
which support the radically pro-incest stance which he is taking. What
I have heard tends to suggest that while the definition of incest
varies, the taboo against it is universal. If he has examples to the
contrary, I would like to hear about them.
I'm trying to keep an open mind in this discussion. My own suspicion
is that taboos against incest and cross-generational sex in general
probably serve an important function in protecting vulnerable
youngsters from exploitation, but that criminalization of those taboos
may do more harm than good. (For example, I question the justice of
statutory rape laws which would jail an adult for sleeping with a
willing 15-year-old, even though I have serious doubts that such a
relationship would often be a "healthy" one for either partner. An
even more blatant injustice was the recent California case in which a
girl was jailed for refusing to testify against her stepfather in an
incest trial.)
--- Prentiss Riddle
--- ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.")
--- {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddlejsq@ut-sally.UUCP (John Quarterman) (01/23/84)
Well, I never thought much of NAMBLA, but any organization that's
capable of provoking that many irrational emotional knee-jerk responses
*has* to have *something* good about it. Such as addressing the problem
of arbitrary age limits on various activities. Sexism is a much more
trendy subject than ageism, but the latter is probably more pervasive.
Whether a discussion of ageism belongs in net.motss is another question....
--
John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas
jsq@ut-sally.ARPA, jsq@ut-sally.UUCP, {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsqguy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (01/23/84)
> No question that incest may hurt children terribly. But with a > responsible parent, and within a responsible society, I see no > reason why a bit of healthy sexual expression between mother and > child, father and child, or between siblings, should be any problem > whatsoever. > Such expressions are common in a variety of cultures worldwide > (refs available upon request). References, please. Maybe it's being reported in a distorted fashion (though I doubt it), but most of the incest that occurs in our society seems to be *very* damaging to the children. How do you propose to make sure that the parents *are* responsible (or, for that matter, that society is responsible)? One needs to define categories of "responsible" and "irresponsible" behavior, must make laws which provide criteria for distinguishing these kinds of behavior, and must provide sanctions for those who aren't responsible. Such laws will *always* screw somebody, as one can argue almost anything into a judgement call. Abolishing the laws because they aren't fair and correct in all cases isn't a solution. > We want to give any two-year-olds who are capable of making it to > the polls the right to vote. Age should not be a qualification. > Day-old babies must have the right to move out of the house. > NAMBLA does not intend to lower the age of consent. NAMBLA proposes > to *abolish* the age of consent. Day-old babies' brains are still developing. What does "move out of the house" mean? Obviously, if an infant crawls out of the house into the street, the parents must have the right to grab it and pull it away from the traffic. This strikes me as a case of taking a principle as far as it can stretch, common sense be damned. This is certainly logical if one takes the principle as being inviolate, but it would probably fail the practical test of leading to harm befalling children who *aren't* mature enough to be given the rights of adults. A philosophical model which doesn't work in the real world, no matter how "logically correct", isn't worth a tinker's dam. Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (01/24/84)
I don't agree with much that Will Doherty says, but I expect he would agree
with this comment of mine: A major reason why so many incestual relationships
are so traumatic for the children is precisely because there is such a strong
taboo against it. When it comes out, the children are taught to believe that
what they did (willingly or otherwise) was "wrong" and "degrading", so of
course they feel sinful and degraded.
This is *not* an endorsement of NAMBLA or of incest. It's just that this
is such a hot issue that I must confess I think Will is doing a better job
of seeing through the emotional fog than many of his "opponents". I think
nothing can be all good or all bad. I'm sure that Will is just saying
that at least *some* of the time, such a relationship might be good for the
child. I'm not sure I believe that, but at least it provides food for thought.
GREG
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!kpno | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!kpno}
!hao!woods